Proposition 200 has fatal flaws Yuma Sun,10/7/04 A hot-button issue in the upcoming election is Proposition 200, which seeks strict enforcement of rules for voting and receiving benefits. If the opinion polls are correct, there seems to be little doubt that the measure will pass since there has been consistent voter support hovering in the 60 to 70 percent range. But that does not prevent opponents, including the Catholic Church and prominent organizations and community leaders, from trying to convince voters that this is a bad proposal that will harm Arizona. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue and the core of the debate seems to be over exactly what the law is intended to do. Proponents say the proposition simply seeks to make sure the state's existing laws are enforced. Opponents see the measure as perhaps racially motivated, inhumane and a misguided attempt to curtail illegal immigration. So, exactly what does the proposition do? In brief, it will require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote and identification at voting places. It would also require proof of citizenship or eligibility to receive certain taxpayer-supported public benefits and would require that any immigration violations be reported to immigration authorities. Those public employees who did not file a report would be guilty of a misdemeanor. Private lawsuits would be permitted to enforce provisions related to public benefits. U.S. citizenship is already required to register to vote, but only an affirmation is requested, not documented proof of citizenship. A signature is required when voting. Citizenship or other eligibility is also required for certain benefits provided by the state and local governments. Some benefits are mandated by federal law regardless of citizenship and those would not be affected. Frankly, we have no problem with asking for documented proof of citizenship or eligibility for any public purpose that requires it, such as voting or benefits, and do not view that as discriminatory, as some have claimed. Some also see this as intimidating, but we do not agree. Those who feel benefits should be available regardless of citizenship or legal residency need to lobby our lawmakers to change the law rather than opposing enforcement of the requirements. There are a couple of questionable aspects of the law, however. One is the requirement for government employees to report immigration violations, and the penalties that apply if they do not. Should state employees be required to help enforce federal immigration law? We think not, especially when there are accompanying legal penalties for non-compliance. Similarly, the provision to allow private lawsuits to enforce benefits provisions opens the door to potential time-consuming frivolous lawsuits that could bog down state operations. While we do not object to the goals of proposition supporters to require proof of U.S. citizenship and eligibility, we cannot support Proposition 200 because we believe it will result in bad law due to its other questionable components. Clearly, however, there seems to be support from many Arizonans for stricter enforcement of voting and benefits requirements, as least based on polling and support for this proposition. We think the Legislature needs to take those feelings into account and revise current laws to reflect this desire. © Copyright, YumaSun.com

All Rights Reserved - 2006
Arizona Interfaith Network